zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or practices in lobbying that are damaging to society, but lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.

Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.

In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.

>>gamema+8i
Why should we be open to nuance when we’re being actively manipulated? Cease manipulating me and I will hear them out on the nuances, provided the advertisers can articulate it.

>>Henchm+il
Someone telling you about a product is not manipulating you. Tracking or certain ad practices might be manipulative, and it's fine to push back against or ban that manipulation, but that is not at all inherent to advertising.

>>gamema+Sl
Are you regularly exposed to ads? I don’t understand this at all. Advertisement has next to nothing to do with “telling you about a product” which is why old ads are funny today. They hadn’t figured out a lot of the techniques we use to elevate advertising so far beyond that. An easy example, which some old ads even caught onto, would be associating the product with something else the consumer desires. Ever see an ad for a car with a happy family in it? Ever see an ad for a sportier car with a guy driving around an attractive lady? Is the happy family related to the function of the car? Of course not; the goal is to tie the thing the consumer wants (a happy family) to the thing they don’t yet (the car).